nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: Jason Frisvold <xenophage0 () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:41:58 -0500
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:17:35 -0500, andrew2 () one net <andrew2 () one net> wrote:
That's being a bit disingenuous. The discussion here hasn't been to open up port 587 to relay for all comers, but rather to open it up for authenticated use only. If spammers start using it, then it's a result of either poor authentication security or an understaffed abuse department. I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25, thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection?
Port 587 is intended for authenticated mail relaying only. While you can set up authenticated relaying only on port 25, you still have to deal with spammers sending mail directly to your users on port 25. Blocking port 25 outbound from dynamic ips (dialups, dsl, cable, etc) helps a little bit .. But then you need an alternate port for relaying. I think using port 587 for authorized relaying and port 25 for normal smtp services works out well. I can't think of a valid reason to ever block port 587, and I can't see how spammers will use port 587 for spamming, unless they have a username/password for relaying..
Andrew
-- Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold XenoPhage0 () gmail com
Current thread:
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?, (continued)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Joe Maimon (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Christopher X. Candreva (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Joe Provo (Feb 26)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Sean Donelan (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Edward B. Dreger (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jason Frisvold (Feb 25)
- Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Feb 25)
- The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)) J.D. Falk (Feb 25)
- Re: The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Niels Bakker (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Steven J. Sobol (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Eric A. Hall (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Frank Louwers (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? just me (Feb 25)